Most litigators are familiar with the requirement that a summary motion be supported with “evidentiary proof in admissible form” establishing the merits of a cause of action or defense.  Nevertheless, many practitioners make the common mistake of submitting evidence in support of a summary judgment motion that would not be admissible at trial, resulting in swift denial of the motion.  In fact, the Appellate Division, Second Department recently reversed a decision by the Nassau County Commercial Division (Bucaria, J.), which granted summary judgment to the moving party, even though the evidence submitted in support of the motion was not in admissible form.

The plaintiff in GMP Fur Trade Fin., LLC v Brenner, 2019 NY Slip Op 00858 (2d Dept Feb. 6, 2019) commenced an action against defendant Dean Brenner (“Brenner”) and others seeking to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, conversion and fraud.  The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability as against Brenner, alleging that he had misappropriated funds and goods in connection with his servicing of four finance agreements plaintiff had entered into with certain non-parties.  Justice Bucaria granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the breach of fiduciary duty claim.  The plaintiff thereafter moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages.  Again, Justice Bucaria granted the plaintiff’s motion and entered judgment against Brenner in the amount of $1,755,630.79.  Brenner appealed.

The Second Department reversed, finding that the evidence upon which plaintiff primarily relied was not in “admissible form.”  The Court stated:

“Here, in moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against Brenner, the plaintiff relied primarily on an affidavit of its managing member, in which the managing member stated that he was told by certain nonparties that Brenner had misappropriated funds and goods.  This hearsay evidence was insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action insofar as asserted against Brenner.”

The Court also concluded that the plaintiff could not cure this defect by submitting unauthenticated, and therefore inadmissible, bank records for the first time on reply.   It is abundantly clear, then, from the Second Department’s decision in GMP Fur Trade that inadmissible hearsay does not have any probative value when submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment, and should not be considered.

However, the rigidity of this rule should be contrasted with the principle that, under certain circumstances, a party opposing summary judgment may rely on evidence that is not in admissible form, but only if the opposing party provides a reasonable excuse for its failure to submit evidence in admissible form (see e.g. Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980] [“The rule with respect to defeating a motion for summary judgment, however, is more flexible, for the opposing party, as contrasted with the movant, may be permitted to demonstrate an acceptable excuse for his failure to meet the strict requirement of tender in admissible form”]).  Indeed, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment may rely on hearsay, as long as it is not the only piece of evidence relied on by that party (Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. v Credit Suisse, 89 AD3d 561 [1st Dept 2011]).

Takeaway:  The Second Department’s point was made clear in GMP Fur Trade, but it is worth repeating: counsel for the moving party should review each piece of evidence submitted in support of its summary judgment motion and ensure that it is admissible.  Indeed, affidavits must be signed and properly notarized, deposition transcripts must be certified by a court reporter and signed by the deponent, a proper foundation must be laid for each record relied upon in the motion, especially business and medical records, and importantly, hearsay statements must be qualified for the court’s consideration under one of the many hearsay exceptions.  By contrast, the “admissible form” requirement is more flexible with respect to an opposing party’s evidence, allowing an opposing party to rely on hearsay (as long as it is not the only piece of evidence relied upon by the opposing party), or other inadmissible evidence (if the opposing party offers a reasonable excuse for its failure to submit evidence in admissible form).

Want more tips on New York practice and procedure? Subscribe to the New York Commercial Division Practice blog and receive an email notification when a new post is published.

To welcome the New Year, we venture outside this blog’s traditional realm of commercial division practice and procedure to reflect on the nature of “intent” at the intersection of professional wrestling and insurer coverage liability. No, this is not a surrealist poem, but a recent decision by Justice Peter Sherwood of the Commercial Division for New York County arising from the 2015 publication of scandalous material featuring professional wrestler Terry Bollea (aka Hulk Hogan).

In May of 2016, Bollea filed an action in Pinellas County, Florida (Case No. 16-002861-CI), against Don Buchwald & Assocs. (DBA), Bollea’s former talent agency, and Tony Burton, Bollea’s agent at DBA, among others. In that action, Bollea asserted claims for, among other things, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, arising from Burton’s alleged role in delivering scandalous footage to the now-defunct website Gawker. A year later, in May of 2017, Bollea filed an amended complaint against DBA for “negligent retention,” alleging that DBA acted negligently by employing Burton when DBA “knew or should have known” that Burton was “predisposed to committing wrongs.”

DBA subsequently sought to have its commercial liability insurer, American Zurich Insurance Company (AZIC), and umbrella liability insurer, Zurich American Insurance Company (ZAIC), provide a defense to DBA and Burton in the Florida action pursuant to certain Primary Policies and Umbrella Policies. These policies provide coverage for “bodily injury” caused by an “occurrence” that takes place during the policy period.

AZIC and ZAIC disclaimed coverage, arguing, among other things, that certain of the claims were ineligible for coverage, and that all of DBA’s and Burton’s actions were allegedly intentional and therefore not caused by an “occurrence,” as defined in the policies. The insurers subsequently filed an action in New York Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division, seeking a declaration that, among other things, they have no duty to defend DBA and Burton.

On summary judgment, Justice Sherwood offered a thorough and expansive discussion of the insurers’ obligation to defend the claims against DBA and Burton. First, the “duty to defend” is broader than the “duty to indemnify,” and arises where there is a “reasonable possibility of coverage” (Rhodes v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 881, 882 [2d Dept 2009]). Moreover, “[i]f any of the claims against an insured arguably arise from covered events, the insurer is required to defend the entire action” (Town of Massena v Healthcare Underwriters Mut. Ins. Co., 98 NY2d 435, 443-444 [2002]).

The insurers’ argument that the policies did not cover claims for intentional torts was also rejected, because from the perspective of an insured employer, its employees’ intentional torts would be “unexpected, unusual and unforeseen.” “In that context, New York courts assess whether the insured intended to cause harmful consequences, not whether the insured, as a general matter, intended to act.” Furthermore, even intentional torts might give rise to coverage for “accidental” conduct, “where the plaintiff in the underlying action can succeed on his or her intentional tort claim without actually proving intentional or knowing conduct – i.e., where something less than actual intent suffices to establish liability.”

Applying this principals, the court held that the Florida action gave rise to a duty to defend because, from DBA’s standpoint, Burton’s acts in allegedly aiding and abetting the publication of scandalous footage were unexpected. Moreover, under Florida law, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress can be sustained by showing “reckless disregard,” without proving deliberate or intentional harm.

Defendants facing liability for intentional conduct should thus bear in mind that an “intentional” tort can still be “accidental” within the meaning of commercial liability policies, so long as the actor did not intend to achieve the specific harmful results (see Messersmith v American Fid. Co., 232 NY 161, 165-166 [1921]).

A general release: the end of a litigation or relinquishment of a right? Every attorney and litigant often breathes a sigh of relief when a litigation comes to a conclusion. But is that always the case? Not when the release covers more than may have been intended.

In a recent decision by Commercial Division Justice Andrea Masley, the Court held that a general form release, which settled a dispute involving one piece of artwork within an allegedly stolen collection of several other pieces of artwork, barred Plaintiff from bringing a subsequent action to recover any other pieces within the collection.

In Frenk v. Solomon, Paul Westheim (“Westheim”), a famous Jewish art critic who specialized in German expressionist art, fled Nazi Germany in 1933 and entrusted his art collection with an art dealer in Berlin, Ms. Weidler (“Weidler”). Westheim later married Ms. Westheim-Frenk. After World War II, Weidler claimed that the art collection was destroyed in the war, but Plaintiff (Westheim-Frenk’s daughter) alleged that Weidler stole Westheim’s art collection and sold it in separate pieces.

In 1973, late Westheim’s wife (“Westheim-Frenk”) commenced an action against Weidler, because Weidler sold a paining from Westheim’s art collection (the “First Action”). That matter settled before discovery and was “discontinued ‘with prejudice.’” Westheim-Frenk, represented by New York counsel, executed a blanket release (the “Release”), discharging Weidler, her “heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns” from all claims that Westheim-Frenk “ever had, now have, or which [Ms. Wetheim-Frenk] or [her] heirs, executors, or administrators, hereafter can, shall or may have.” In consideration for the Release, Plaintiff’s mother received $7,500.00, which is equivalent to about $40,000.00 today.

In or about January of 2013, Plaintiff initiated the instant action against the executors of Weidler’s estate and her heirs, seeking to recover the valuable artwork from Westheim’s art collection, as well as damages and a judgment declaring that she was entitled to the artwork.

Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment alleging that the Release and stipulation discontinuing the First Action barred Plaintiff’s claim under the doctrine of res judicata; and nothing in the broad Release was “intended to be narrowly applied to any one painting, but rather, to the entire collection.” The terms of the broad Release bar Plaintiff from bringing an action against Weidler, or her “heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.” Because the defendants demonstrated the prima facie defense of release, the burden shifted to Plaintiff to evidence material issues of fact to defeat summary judgement. See Aoki v. Aoki.

In seeking to limit the broad Release, Plaintiff argues that the subject of the First Action was the artwork, entitled Portrait of Dr. Robert Freund, and, thus, that the Release applied only to that piece. Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that Westheim-Frenk was fraudulently induced by Weidler to execute the Release and, thus, the defendants should be estopped from using the Release. However, the defendants objected to Plaintiff’s use of parol evidence. Justice Masley held that because the Release contained a standardized form, the court “must be flexible in the application of the parol evidence rule.”

Plaintiff also attempted to identify a transaction between Ms. Weidler and Westheim-Frenk in support of her claim that the Release only pertained to the single painting. Plaintiff argued that in 1976, when Weidler attempted to sell another piece from Westheim’s collection, Weidler entered into an agreement to split the sale amount of the artwork—a deal which would clearly not make sense if the Release pertained to all the artwork in Westheim’s collection. On the other hand, the defendants identify a letter from Westheim-Frenk stating that she understood that nothing could be done regarding all future artwork that may turn up. Next, Plaintiff argued that it is inconceivable that the low settlement amount from the First Action ($7,500.00) would have covered all the other valuable artwork. Justice Masley, however, rejected these conclusory arguments, holding that Plaintiff’s “evidence of conduct and intent is inconclusive” in light of the clear and unambiguous language of the Release.

In that regard, the First Department has held that “to hold a release forever hostage to legal afterthoughts basically vitiates the nature of the release.” See Aoki v. Aoki. Although Plaintiff argued that the Release should be set aside because Weidler used fraud to obtain same, Justice Masley held that in order to set aside the Release on the ground of fraud, Plaintiff had to establish that the fraud was separate from the subject of the Release, in addition to all the basic elements of fraud. Plaintiff, however, failed to identify any of Weidler’s misrepresentations at the time the Release was executed. In fact, there was no support for a claim that Westheim-Frenk was defrauded when she signed the release. Interestingly, Justice Masley held that plaintiff’s mother “failed to condition the Release on the truth of the information . . . i.e. that there were no other artworks from Westheim’s collection.” The Court finally also determined that Weidler did not waive the Release and Plaintiff did not present any evidence demonstrating that Weidler “intentionally relinquish[ed] a known right.”

Accordingly, because the Release was clear and unambiguous, the Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

Takeaway: Be especially precautious when drafting a release for a client, making sure not to waive any of their rights. Here, Justice Masley recognized that Plaintiff’s mother was represented by counsel when entering into the general release. This could potentially open you to a malpractice lawsuit.

Want more tips on New York practice and procedure? Subscribe to the New York Commercial Division Practice blog and receive an email notification when a new post is published.

I made two observations coming out of Grand Central Station during my morning commute last week. First, the city really stinks after a string of oppressively hot and humid summer days. Second, there appears to be a temporary taxi stand, perhaps occasioned by the ongoing construction of the new One Vanderbilt building, just outside the south entrance of Grand Central Terminal on 42nd Street under the Park Avenue Viaduct.

This latter observation was rather rudely forced upon me when the precarious position of one such cab nearly caused me to traverse its front-end Bo and Luke Duke style. The site of the mangled NYC taxi medallion fastened to the cab’s dented hood was a striking metaphor for the current state of the taxi industry given the increasing popularity of ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft.

The plight of the cabbie was on display in a recent decision from the Honorable O. Peter Sherwood of the Manhattan Commercial Division in a case called Capital One Equip. v Deus, in which the cabbie-defendants, after defaulting on a promissory note representing more than $400,000 borrowed to purchase a taxi medallion, attempted to rest on the traditional contractual defense of impracticability or impossibility of performance in a summary proceeding under CPLR 3213.

The essence of Defendants’ claim was that “due to the economic change in the medallion and taxi industry of New York by ride sharing applications like Uber and Lyft, there is an impossible hurdle for the defendants to overcome, making the repayment of the loan impossible.”

Readers may recall from their law-school hornbook days that the impossibility defense contemplates truly unexpected circumstances. As the plaintiff-lender in the Deus case put it, “the impossibility defense . . . only excuses a party’s contractual performance where there has been destruction or obstruction by God, a superior force, or by law.”

The cabbies, however, likened their situation to the kind of critical condition contemplated by the traditional defense, describing the industry as being “on life support with little to no chance for a reversal of its current dire situation.”

“At the heart of the problems facing the NYC Taxi industry,” cried the cabbies, “is the emergence of companies such as Uber and Lyft which are exempt from the regulatory framework burdening the medallion owners.” As a result, “ridership in New York City yellow taxi cabs has dropped almost 30%” and “NYC taxi medallions, which were selling for in excess of $1,000,000 as recently as 2013, have plummeted in market value” – all of which has led to a “collapse of unprecedented proportions.”

A creative argument to be sure, but the court wasn’t buying it. Citing New York case law going back to the late 1960’s, the court ultimately held for the plaintiff-lender, finding that “performance of a contract is not excused where impossibility or difficulty of performance is occasioned only by financial difficulty or economic hardship. Economic hardship alone cannot excuse performance; the impossibility must be produced by an unanticipated event that could not have been foreseen or guarded against in the contract.”

Coming on the heels of several driver suicides in recent months, the Deus decision is just more bad news for the NYC taxi industry. While market forces created by the advent of ride-sharing services may not be “superior” enough to satisfy the impossibility defense, one thing’s for sure: it’s a difficult time to be a taxi driver in New York City.

**UPDATE**  Perhaps the cabbies are seeing a little light after all. Around the time this post was published last week, news broke that the New York City Council had tugged the reigns of the Uber/Lyft ride-sharing industry by passing minimum-wage requirements for drivers, as well as a one-year freeze on the licensing of participating vehicles in the city. The first-of-their-kind bills, particularly the cap on e-hail cars, was driven in large part by increased problems related to city-street congestion. Today, Mayor de Blasio signed the bills into law.

 

In May 2013, professional golfer Vijay Singh (“Singh”) brought suit against PGA Tour, an organizer of the leading men’s professional golf tours and events in North America, in Vijay Singh v. PGA Tour, Inc. PGA Tour enacted an Anti-Doping Program, which prohibits golfers from using certain substances. The list of prohibited substances was adopted from the list maintained by the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”). A few years after the Anti-Doping Program was enacted, Singh began using a performance-enhancing substance, deer antler spray, for his knee and back problems.

Although Singh tested negative for any banned substance, PGA Tour, which sent the spray for testing, determined that the spray contained prohibited substances. As a result, PGA Tour concluded that Singh violated the Anti-Doping Program and, as a result, suspended him from activities related to PGA Tour’s organization. PGA Tour subsequently dropped its disciplinary action and revoked Singh’s suspension after WADA announced that deer antler spray is not a prohibited substance.

Singh sued PGA Tour in the New York County Commercial Division for, among other things, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion. Nearly three years later, Singh moved for partial summary judgment on his breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cause of action. PGA Tour moved for summary judgment on the causes of action for conversion and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In May 2017, Justice Eileen Bransten granted in part and denied in part PGA Tour’s motion for summary judgment. She dismissed Singh’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and denied in part Singh’s motion for partial summary judgment on that claim. The Court determined there were issues of fact regarding whether PGA Tour breached the implied covenant of good faith by failing to consult with the WADA, upon which PGA Tour clearly relied in issuing its list of prohibited substances, prior to suspending Singh. The Court also concluded there were issues of fact pertaining to what, if any, damage Singh suffered as a result of his suspension and PGA Tour’s making public statements regarding his use of the substance. Justice Bransten also dismissed Plaintiff’s cause of action for conversion on the basis that PGA Tour demonstrated compliance with the Anti-Doping Program, thus establishing that PGA Tour was entitled to escrow Plaintiff’s funds from the date of Singh’s alleged violation to the end of his suspension.

Recently, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Justice Bransten’s decision. PGA Tour’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Singh’s cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was denied. The Court held that the determination as to whether PGA Tour exercised discretion “arbitrarily, irrationally or in bad faith by failing to confer with or defer to” the WADA prior to suspending Singh and making public statements regarding his use of the deer antler spray is an issue of fact for the jury to determine. The First Department relied on Dalton v. Educational Testing Serv., which held that “[w]here a contract contemplates the exercise of discretion, this pledge includes a promise not to act arbitrarily or irrationally.” Indeed, the Court went on to determine that within the obligation to exercise good faith are “promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included.” In that regard, the Court held that issues of fact exist on whether the public statements made by PGA Tour representatives implicating Singh’s substance use were a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and whether and what damage Singh suffered as a result thereof. The Court also affirmed the earlier decision dismissing the claim to the extent it relied on Singh’s allegation that he was treated differently than other similarly situated professional golfers.

In commercial litigation, it is not at all unusual for courts to be called upon to determine whether an unsigned agreement is binding.  The federal courts have a long line of cases dealing with this very issue, and perhaps the seminal one in this area is the Second Circuit’s decision in Winston v Mediafare Enter. Corp., a case considering whether an unsigned settlement agreement was enforceable.  The court there identified several factors to be considered in determining whether an agreement — in that case, a settlement — is binding:  “(1) whether there has been an express reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a writing; (2) whether there has been partial performance of the contract; (3) whether all of the terms of the alleged contract have been agreed upon; and (4) whether the agreement at issue is the type of contract that is usually committed to writing.”

New York courts take a similar approach.  They have long recognized that a binding agreement may be found, even though a contract was not signed, so long as it is not proscribed by New York’s statute of frauds, NY Gen. Obligs. L. 5-701.  In  Brown Bros. Elec. Contrs. v Beam Constr. Corp., for example, the Court of Appeals held that “[i]n determining whether the parties entered into a contractual agreement and what were its terms, it is necessary to look . . . to the objective manifestations of the intent of the parties as gathered by their expressed words and deeds.” See also Flores v. The Lower East Side Service Center, Inc.  Not exactly a recipe suitable for summary judgment.

Recently, in 223 Sam, LLC v. 223 15th Street, LLC, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss breach of contract claim.  The case arose out of plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract based upon an unexecuted amendment to an operating agreement.  The amendment added plaintiff as a 50% member of defendants, and also acknowledged plaintiff as a co-manager.  The damages sought reflect the management fees allegedly earned.

Defendants argument, made in the context of a motion for summary judgment was simple:  the amendment was never executed by the parties, and therefore is not binding.

In rejecting defendants’ argument, the court first noted that New York has long recognized the rule that parties will not be bound if  they state their intent not to be bound unless and until the agreement is signed by all.  However, if the parties reach agreement on “all the substantial terms” and nothing material is left for the future, then even if the parties intended to reduce the agreement but did not, this may nevertheless create a binding agreement between them.  Express reservation is the key.  The ultimate question of whether the parties intended to be bound is a question of fact.

In denying defendants’ motion, the court referred to emails exchanged between the parties which simply “failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the parties had agreed upon the major terms of the agreement and whether the parties began to perform . . . .”

The hard lesson:  be careful in exchanging drafts, revisions and amendments (1) without expressly reserving the right not to be bound unless and until signed by all, and (2) partially performing before the agreement is signed.  Otherwise, once all material terms are agreed upon, you may indeed have a binding agreement.

 

 

 

Ian Pai was an early participant in the Blue Man Group (“BMG”).  Between 1989 and 1991, he met and began collaborating with the founders of BMG, namely, Chris Wink, Phillip Stanton and Matt Goldman.  Pai claims to have made significant contributions to BMG’s creative and musical aspects over the decades-long relationship he had with the group, having ultimately assumed the duties of Music Director and Conductor.   In 2014, Pai’s royalty checks were abruptly cut in half without explanation.  Ultimately, Pai filed a  complaint against BMG and its founders, claiming breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, accounting, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.  Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts.  Justice Barry Ostrager denied the motion in part, but granted summary judgment dismissing the two counts premised upon the existence of a fiduciary duty:  breach of fiduciary duty and accounting.  The remaining claims survived the motion, and trial is now scheduled for April 9, 2018.

Pai concedes that his fiduciary duty and accounting claims are not based upon a “formal” fiduciary relationship, but rather on his decades-old personal relationship with the three founders, and the founders’ alleged representations that they would “take care” of him.   In sum, his fiduciary duty claims were based solely upon the close relationship they developed over the years.  The defendants denied a fiduciary relationship ever existed, but did admit they had a long close-knit relationship with Pai.

So, can a mere close personal relationship create a fiduciary duty?   Maybe!  Indeed, as the Court recognized, citing Kohan v. Nehmadi, a fiduciary relationship can be found to exist between close friends under certain circumstances.   Here, the Court considered that “Pai’s age, lack of financial experience, and trust in the Individual Defendants to look out for him” may very well have given rise to a fiduciary relationship.  However, fatal to Pai’s claims was applicable six-year statute of limitations which barred any claims he may have had in the 1990s.  The Court reasoned that since 2009, Pai has been represented by counsel, negotiating agreements between Pai and BMG, all at arms-length.  The result is that the contract-based claims survive for trial, but the fiduciary relationship-based do not.

The concept of a close personal relationship giving rise to fiduciary duty is not new.    Whether a fiduciary relationship exists is, of course, a very fact-intensive inquiry.  The Court in the Pai case recognized this and, in the end, did not have to decide whether the early relationship in fact gave rise to a fiduciary one since it was time barred.  A good overview of this very issue — how New York courts determine the existence of a fiduciary duty — is found in an EDNY case, St. John’s Univ. v. Bolton (Garaufis, J., 2010) (“a fiduciary relationship embraces not only those the law has long adopted . . . but also more informal relationships where it can be readily seen that one party reasonably trusted another”).  The starting point (and maybe the ending one too) is whether there is an agreement between the parties governing their rights and obligations.  In the absence of such, a close personal relationship intertwined with a business one can very well create at least issues of fact whether a fiduciary relationship exists between them.

You’re a commercial litigator in New York. You’ve just been brought in on a case pending in the Commercial Division before a particular Commercial Division judge.  Or maybe you’ve just received an administrative bounce to a Commercial Division RJI Addendum, assigning your case to a particular Commercial Division judge sitting in the county where you recently filed motion papers or requested a preliminary conference. What’s the first thing you do?  You check the rules, of course.

Obviously, that begins with familiarizing (or re-familiarizing as the case may be) yourself with the Commercial Division Rules – particularly Rules 7 through 24, which supersede the Uniform Civil Rules with respect to conferencing your case and engaging in motion practice.

Know the Rules

But you also should look to see whether the particular Commercial Division judge assigned to your case has individual practice rules – which rules, in turn, often supersede or otherwise modify the Commercial Division Rules. Those Commercial Division judges that have individual practice rules update their rules with some regularity, so you also should make a point of checking them periodically.

As a recent example, Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Eileen Bransten, whose practice rules begin with the general principle of application noted above – namely, that “the Commercial [Division] Rules govern all cases before Justice Bransten unless modified or changed below” – updated her rules in March of this year. Some of the more notable updates to Justice Bransten’s “Practices in Part 3” are as follows:

  • Correspondence with the Court:       All letters to Justice Bransten, including pre-motion conference letters under Commercial Division Rule 24, in addition to being e-filed on the NYSCEF system, must be “hand delivered” to her Part Clerk and must conform to the font requirements of “Times New Roman, Size 12.”
  • Court conferences: Justice Bransten’s updated practice rules link to forms for the New Revised Preliminary Conference Stipulation and Order, as well as the New Compliance Conference Stipulation and Order, both of which are required for conferences held in Part 3.
  • Filing under seal: Justice Bransten’s updated practice rules provide for extensive direction concerning the filing of documents under seal:
    • Applications to file under seal must be made by Order to Show Cause;
    • Parties must meet and confer regarding the documents proposed for sealing before making a motion to file under seal;
    • Motions to file under seal will be considered in light of the limitations imposed on sealing as dictated by recent case law; moving parties must propose document redactions “as opposed to the wholesaling sealing of documents”;
    • Any document proposed for sealing must be filed in its original, un-redacted form as an exhibit to the motion, with the proposed redacted version of the document filed “as a subset of that exhibit”;
    • All motions to file under seal must be accompanied by a jointly-created index of the documents proposed for sealing, to include the basis for the proposed sealing and any objection thereto.
  • Motion practice in general:
    • Justice Bransten requires a courtesy (hard) copy of all e-filed motion papers;
    • If a party wishes to submit a deposition/hearing transcript or an arbitration award as an exhibit to a motion, the document must be submitted in its entirety as opposed to excerpts;
    • When submitting a Statement of Material Facts under Commercial Division Rule 19-a in support of a motion for summary judgment, a party must provide specific “references to appropriate documentation” establishing that the facts are undisputed; the party opposing the motion must “first repeat the movant’s claimed undisputed facts followed by its response,” which also must provide “reference to appropriate documentation.”
    • Consistent with her prior rulings on the topic (see e.g. ZV NY, Inc. v Moskowitz 44 Misc 3d 1225[A] [Sup Ct, NY County 2014), attorney affirmations in which counsel present arguments of law – sometimes referred to as “memo-affs” or “brief-adavits” or “brief-irmations” – “will not be considered by the Court.”
  • Trial practice:
    • Justice Bransten will not give parties a trial date unless and until they have attempted some form of ADR, whether privately or through the Commercial Division’s ADR Program.
    • All pre-trial submissions (briefs, witness and exhibit lists, and motions in limine, etc.) must be “both e-filed and hand delivered to the Part in hard copy.”